Annual report pursuant to Section 13 and 15(d)

Commitments and Contingencies

v3.8.0.1
Commitments and Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies
Letters of Credit
As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company had $16.4 million and $6.2 million, respectively, of unused letters of credit outstanding, which carry fees of 2.50 - 3.25% per annum and 2.75% per annum, respectively.
Non-cancellable Operating Leases
The Company leases facilities and equipment under non-cancellable operating leases. Total operating lease expenses were $12.5 million, $12.4 million and $7.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
Certain operating leases contain rent escalation clauses, which are recorded on a straight-line basis over the initial term of the lease with the difference between the rent paid and the straight-line rent recorded as a deferred rent liability. Lease incentives received from landlords are recorded as deferred rent liabilities and are amortized on a straight-line basis over the lease term as a reduction to rent expense. Deferred rent liabilities were $2.5 million and $2.9 million as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.
Future minimum lease payments expected to be made under non-cancelable operating lease agreements as of December 31, 2017 for each of the years ending December 31, are as follows (in thousands):
2018
$
9,360

2019
6,453

2020
4,465

2021
2,851

2022
2,399

Thereafter
1,580

Total
$
27,108


Capital Lease Obligations
As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, capital lease obligations were $13.2 million and $23.0 million, respectively. The capital lease obligations bear interest at rates up to 5.16% per annum and 10% per annum, respectively.
The following is a schedule of future lease payments as of December 31, 2017 (in thousands):
2018
$
7,919

2019
4,810

2020
976

2021
266

2022
62

Thereafter
18

Total future lease payments
14,051

Less: Amount representing estimated executory costs included in future lease payments
326

Net minimum future lease payments
13,725

Less: Amount representing interest
493

Present value of future payments
13,232

Less: Current portion
7,421

Long term portion
$
5,811


Purchase Commitment
In 2017, the Company entered into purchase commitments with multiple suppliers to purchase $280.6 million of photovoltaic modules and inverters over the next 24 months with the first modules delivered in January 2018. There is some variability to the commitment amount as the final details of tariff imposition are implemented by our suppliers.
Warranty Accrual
The Company accrues warranty costs when revenue is recognized for solar energy systems sales, based on the estimated future costs of meeting its warranty obligations. Warranty costs primarily consist of replacement costs for supplies and labor costs for service personnel since warranties for equipment and materials are covered by the original manufacturer’s warranty (other than a small deductible in certain cases). As such, the warranty reserve is immaterial in all periods presented. The Company makes and revises these estimates based on the number of solar energy systems under warranty, the Company’s historical experience with warranty claims, assumptions on warranty claims to occur over a systems’ warranty period and the Company’s estimated replacement costs.
Guarantees
In December 2017, the Company acquired the investor's interest in the consolidated VIE for which the Company guaranteed an internal rate of return. Upon purchase of the investor's stake in this Fund, these obligations were satisfied as described in Note 15, VIE Arrangements. The Company guaranteed one of its investors in one of its Funds an internal rate of return, calculated on an after-tax basis, in the event that it purchases the investor’s interest or the investor sells its interest to the Company.
ITC and Cash Grant Indemnification
The Company is contractually committed to compensate certain investors for any losses that they may suffer in certain limited circumstances resulting from reductions in ITCs or U.S. Treasury grants. Generally, such obligations would arise as a result of reductions to the value of the underlying solar energy systems as assessed by the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) or U.S. Treasury Department. At each balance sheet date, the Company assesses and recognizes, when applicable, the potential exposure from this obligation based on all the information available at that time, including any audits undertaken by the IRS. The Company believes that this obligation is not probable based on the facts known as of the filing date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The maximum potential future payments that the Company could have to make under this obligation would depend on the difference between the fair values of the solar energy systems sold or transferred to the Funds as determined by the Company and the values the IRS would determine as the fair value for the systems for purposes of claiming ITCs. ITCs are claimed based on the statutory regulations from the IRS. The Company uses fair values determined with the assistance of an independent third-party appraisal as the basis for determining the ITCs that are passed-through to and claimed by the Fund investors. Since the Company cannot determine how the IRS will evaluate system values used in claiming ITCs, the Company is unable to reliably estimate the maximum potential future payments that it could have to make under this obligation as of each balance sheet date.
Litigation
The Company is subject to certain legal proceedings, claims, investigations and administrative proceedings in the ordinary course of its business. The Company records a provision for a liability when it is both probable that the liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. These provisions, if any, are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Depending on the nature and timing of any such proceedings that may arise, an unfavorable resolution of a matter could materially affect the Company’s future consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position in a particular period.
In July 2012, the U.S. Treasury Department and the Department of Justice (together, the “Government”) opened a civil investigation into the participation by residential solar developers in the Section 1603 grant program. The Government served subpoenas on several developers, including Sunrun, along with their investors and valuation firms. The focus of the investigation is the claimed fair market value of the solar systems the developers submitted to the Government in their grant applications. The Company has cooperated fully with the Government and plans to continue to do so. No claims have been brought against the Company. The Company is not able to estimate the ultimate outcome or a range of possible loss at this point in time.    
On November 20, 2015, a putative class action captioned Slovin et al. v. Sunrun Inc. and Clean Energy Experts, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-05340, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The complaint generally alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”) on behalf of an individual and putative classes of persons alleged to be similarly situated. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on December 2, 2015, and a Second Amended Complaint on March 25, 2016, also asserting individual and putative class claims under the TCPA. By Order entered on April 28, 2016, the Court granted the Company’s motion to strike the class allegations set forth in the Second Amended Complaint, and granted leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on July 12, 2016 asserting individual and putative class claims under the TCPA. On October 12, 2016, the Court denied the Company’s motion to again strike the class allegations set forth in the Third Amended Complaint. On October 3, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, seeking to, among other things, revise the definitions of the classes that plaintiffs seek to represent. The Company has opposed that motion, which remains pending before the Court. In each iteration of their complaint, plaintiffs seek statutory damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs, on behalf of themselves and the absent classes. Plaintiffs’ deadline to file their motion for class certification is currently April 13, 2018.
Most, if not all, of the claims asserted in the lawsuit relate to activities allegedly engaged in by third-party vendors, for which the Company denies any responsibility. The vendors are contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for losses related to the conduct alleged. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.
On April 13, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Pytel v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538215, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company’s directors and officers, the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering and certain other defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making false or misleading statements in connection with the Company’s August 5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the continuation of net metering programs. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who acquired the Company’s common stock pursuant or traceable to the initial public offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, including interest, rescission or rescissory damages, an award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, and any equitable or injunctive relief deemed appropriate by the court. On April 29, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Baker et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538419, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On May 10, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Nunez v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538593, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. The Baker and Nunez complaints are substantially similar to the Pytel complaint, and seek similar relief against similar defendants on behalf of the same purported class.
On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Cohen, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538304, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company’s directors and officers, and the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making false or misleading statements in connection with an August 5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the Company’s business practices and its dependence on complex financial instruments. The Cohen plaintiffs seek to represent the same class and seek similar relief as the plaintiffs in the Pytel, Nunez, and Baker actions.    On September 26, 2016, the Baker, Cohen, Nunez, and Pytel actions were consolidated. On December 27, 2017, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.
On May 3, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned Fink, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02537, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against the Company and certain of the Company’s directors and officers. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading statements in connection with public filings made between September 15, 2015 and March 8, 2017 regarding the number of customers who canceled contracts after signing up for the Company’s home-solar energy system. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, including interest, attorney's fees, and costs, on behalf of all persons other than the defendants who purchased the Company's securities between September 16, 2015 and May 2, 2017. On May 4, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned Hall, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02571, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. On May 18, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned Sanogo, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02865, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern California District of California. The Hall and Sanogo complaints are substantially similar to the Fink complaint, and seeks similar relief against similar defendants on behalf of a substantially similar class. On August 23, 2017, the FinkHall, and Sanogo actions were consolidated, and on September 25, 2017, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint which alleges the same underlying violations as the original Fink, Hall and Sanogo complaints. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.
On June 29, 2017, a shareholder derivative complaint captioned Barbara Sue Sklar Living Trust v. Sunrun Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against the Company and certain of the Company’s directors and officers. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 by making false or misleading statements in connection with public filings, including proxy statements, made between September 10, 2015 and May 3, 2017 regarding the number of customers who cancelled contracts after signing up for the Company’s home solar energy system. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages in favor of the Company, certain corporate actions to purportedly improve the Company’s corporate governance, and an award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff stockholder, including attorneys’ fees. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.